>> michael dee antonio and tony schwarz, thank you. don't miss full circle. our interactive on facebook. you can get all the details, 6:25 p.m. eastern every night at facebook.com/anderson cooper full circumstance. news continues, want to hand it over to chris, see what he's working on for cuomo primetime. >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo. we had late developments today. rod rosenstein may have been kidding about wearing a wire to secretly tape trump after the firing of jim comey, but the acting head of the fbi was dead serious enough to do something potentially far more damaging to the president and we'll tell you what it was and why. and the president's reported choice to replace u.n. ambassador nikki haley is raising eyebrows and making me wonder what the president means when he says only the best. let's get after it. ♪ ♪ so, deputy a.g. rod

rosenstein discussed wearing a wire around president trump, remember that? when he was talking with top officials at the fbi, they said it was a joke. well, according to cnn sources, it happened, and then came an even bigger development. sure to enrage the right, but very important to process, andrew mccabe, then the acting director at the fbi, took the extraordinary step of opening an obstruction of justice investigation, even before bob mueller was brought into the picture. now, tomorrow the mueller team is expected to reveal more of what it knows about paul manafort and michael cohen. so let's gavel cuomo's court. it is in session with laura coats and ken cuccinelli. it's good to have you here. let's start with the rosenstein information, really andrew mccabe, laura. our sources say that rosenstein was #kidding, not kidding about the need to surveiler. that is backed up that andrew

mccabe felt, after everything that involved comey's dismissal by the president, an obstruction of justice investigation was warranted. your take away? >> i think no one should be surprised that when they had this very unsermon ious firing of the head of the fbi, you would contemporaneous written memos about the pledges of loyalty and you had this discussion of why he asked the question of letting this flynn issue go, even after sally yates had come to the white house, explained that there may be a compromised national security advisor. it should come as no surprise that, one, it was a personal response. they thought that one of their own had really got the raw end of the deal. but it was a methodical and strategic and nonemotional decision. you open up an obstruction of justice claim early in time to get all the information you possibly can to get the evidence in early, to lock it in. you cannot wait for the speculative incoming of the special counsel if one would have ever come. i think it was both equal parts

personal and equal parts prudent on their behalf. >> ken, legitimate response to the facts they had at hander or you see this as being motivated by something else? >> well, no. i think it was certainly an element of circling the wagons among fbi's folks. but also, i mean, look at what we know in hindsight. andrew mccabe was very aggressive, overly so, in matters related to the president. and, you know, i just have never thought that mueller was seriously pursuing obstruction because the person overseeing him, who we're talking about here, the deputy attorney general, would be right smack in the middle of any such investigation and would have had to have recused himself. and i don't think rosenstein would have stuck around in this for 19 months -- i think we're at 19 months now -- had that been a serious pursuit of the special counsel, because he's literally right in the middle of their theories of obstruction.

so i don't think that's ever been seriously pursued. we've talked about it a lot on this show, but i don't think in the special counsel's office, particularly in light of article 2, that they have seriously pursued that. and i think we may learn some more tomorrow -- >> well -- >> we're going to learn it more in the negative much as we have in the past like things with flynn earlier this week that didn't mention anything about russian collusion during the election. >> there's a lot of redacted stuff. we'll know more about that this time tomorrow. we'll be talking about it. one thing at a time. laura, the idea there can't be real obstruction because rosenstein would be conflicted. he would have been out if it were real. >> i don't buy that. here's why. i don't think mueller is acting with regard to who his boss will be. i think he's acting under the direction of the mandate itself, not whoever occupies the position to oversee the carrying out of his mandate. if he were to do so, he would be a marionette in somebody who

would be compromised instead of an objective purchase sewer of the fact. >> he also has to get permission to proceed. >> that is true. but the idea that you would act only in regard to where you could get permission would really be antithetical to his principle. he would have no autonomy, no independence, no objectivity. these are not the qualities you want of a special counsel. certainly not the qualities of -- >> violate article 2 -- >> i'm going to finish my point first, ken, and i'm happy to respond to you. when you have these three issues and why the special counsel is appointed in the first place, the independents, there is accountability and also objectivity to pursue justice, it would be antithetical to what you say and do so. i agree with you article 2 does discuss the notion that these people all do serve under the pleasure of the president. and he certainly has his druthers about who he'd like to no longer serve in his cabinet positions or those at the pleasure. however, you cannot do so for a nefarious or some sort of corrupt intent and expect

everyone to just evaluate and look at you and take the benefit of the doubt. they are arguably looking at this from the benefit of the doubt saying, listen is there any reason to believe this was not something that was an article 2 dismissal? in fact, one that is tied to some other criminal investigation. and his own words indicate that. so i think that mueller is acting independently. i still think as i said before that mccabe, you called him very aggressive. i would not expect the deputy fbi director to be a shrinking violet. i think they should be aggressive in trying to understand whether there has been a criminal violation. >> also, we tend to gloss over one of the big things that got mccabe in trouble which was his being aggressive to use your word, of trying to secret out to the media his attempts to go after hillary clinton. you know, it's always seen that, well, they dismissed him for lying. his lack of candor or whatever they want to call it within the d.o.j.. the premise matters as well. he wanted it to be known he wanted to go after hillary clinton. you guys always ignore that part. but to remind people of why it

seemed so obvious the president was motivated not by simple druthers to use your word, laura, but by animus. was what he said in an interview to lester holt whether he was going to get rid of comey. let me refresh your memory. >> regardless of recommendation i was going to fire comey, knowing there was no good time to do it. and, in fact, when i decided to just do it i said to myself, i said, you know, this russia thing with trump and russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the democrats for having lost an election that they should have won. >> trump and russia what was on his mind. now, won of the contextual things you want as a starting point, was the understanding matched on each side? did comey see it the way the president did? here's what comey said. >> he fired comey because comey would not, among other things, say that he wasn't a target of the investigation. >> obviously that's rudy

giuliani. everybody mixes together but not that much. ken, the point is this. you had the president's lawyer say, look, comey wouldn't say that the president wasn't a target, that pissed off the president. the president says in an interview. i didn't care what rod rosenstein said, i was getting rid of this guy which blows the whole pretense of bringing rosenstein in the picture in the first place. that isn't enough to say this isn't just dismissing the head of the fbi because that's what he gets to do. it's why he did it. mustn't that matter? >> you can say it matters if obstruction was appropriate. but, look, there were a lot of reasons to fire comey and you're talking to somebody who is advocating it as early as the previous summer, as did alan dershowitz on this very station. and, you know, that was happening almost a year before trump fired him. so there were plenty of reasons for him to be let go. you've just named two, two of the list -- >> because it came out of the

president's mouth and his lawyer's mouth. that's why. >> right. you quoted him for one sentence. but there are plenty of other reasons. and he himself offered many other complaints over the course of the time running up to the actual firing. he being the president. >> right. look -- >> i've already told you i didn't think this was appropriate going forward. to laura's point, this is not an independent counsel, this is a special counsel. the independent statute -- >> gone. >> 20 years ago. and he has to get everything approved, everything important, by his oversight officer, who is not the attorney general. it's the deputy attorney general. and it would be totally inappropriate for rosenstein to be addressing matters related to obstruction when he is so unremovable from any discussion of the subject. it would be completely

inappropriate and i just don't think rosenstein would operate that way. >> laura, final word. >> ken, i agree we all thought rosenstein had conflicts of interest when it comes to his own participation interacting with reasons to fire comey. it could have been extensive given est gave that press conference and usurped the role of attorney general being the head investigator. having said that, i think people are misguided why perhaps the obstruction of justice issue is not the end game of mueller. why would it be the end game? if you had a prosecutor come to you and say my end game is to punish somebody from preventing me from seeing what i want to see ending there, they would be a fool. it has been the foundation for a prior president, et cetera. the idea that you would give somebody a speeding ticket for running away from the speed of the -- scene of the crime as opposed to investigating the crime would be absurd. mueller can have as much impact in the investigation as the obstruction, but i do agree, it

can't possibly be an end game. if it is, what were the 19 months for? >> we will see. more and more all the time. tomorrow is a big day. we will not know so much about this, i don't think, but there will be more meat on the bones of why mueller is doing what he's doing. ken, thank you. laura, as always, appreciate it. now, when we come back, there is another big story that we are digging into deeply. there is new evidence of this alleged scheme to rig the vote results in north carolina. there may have to be an entirely new election for that member of congress. we just had a huge move from one of the candidates involved. i'll tell you all about it next. this is not a bed.

it's proven quality sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999... intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. it can even warm your feet to help you fall asleep faster. how smart is that? smarter sleep. to help you shed those sugar cookies, get a running start on the holidays, and take it all in with the patience of a saint. don't miss the last chance to save up to $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. ends monday. ♪ can you feel it ♪ can you feel it

put a smile on everyone's face this holiday, with great gifts from amazon. with low prices and free shipping on millions of items, for everything you need this holiday, visit amazon.

the mess in north carolina just hit a new level of fogaze. cnn has now found problems with absentee ballots in a second county. this isn't made up. it's messed up. so much so that the democrat in the one remaining uncalled congressional race just withdrew his concession -- it's too close, there are too many problems. what's the main allegation? people claim they were paid by a republican operative to break the law. that's the simple truth. the focus is two counties. robe son and bladen. the latest issues come out of robeson. four people there signed off on multiple absentee ballots. those four people are all connected to this guy, leslie

mcrae douls. a veteran political operative, he has a record of insurance fraud, he's been accused of messing with ballots before, two years ago, yet he was hired by the republican in this race, mark harris. now, the alleged schema apparently included a practice called ballot harvesting. what's that? a stranger knocks on your door promising to deliver your absentee ballot for you, doing you a favor. it's against the law. some of those ballots might have been changed or just never turned in. the signatures are what tipped this off. that's going to be the key here as they get more and more proof. as you look through the ballots, there are seven people who were witnesses more than ten times each. but only a relative or a near guardian can deliver a ballot for you. so you've got two women who told cnn affiliates that they were paid to collect ballot that they handed over to dowles. listen. >> like i said, i don't know nothing what happened after i dropped them off. >> you don't know certainty whether they were sent to the elections office? >> no, i don't.

>> we were asked to pick up absentee ballots. he told us he would put gas in our car, a little bit of money during the week to help out. >> the state board of elections voted against certifying this ee liks. what are they going to do about this? they have some options. they can order a new vote. that would be a big deal, be unprecedented, but they may have to. congress could also refuse to seat harris. either way, it's quite possible that this new election will need to take place in north carolina. so, the question then becomes, where are the republicans in the state? what do they have to say about this mounting evidence in what are they going to do about this? let's find out. we have republican state senator dan bishop. he's also the vice chair of the committee on elections. he joins us now. thank you so much. appreciate having you for two reasons. one, this really matters. and two, i can't get any republicans to talk about this. i couldn't get voter fraud out of the mouths of your fellow party members when it came to blaming it on, you know, mysterious latinos in california. so thank you for taking this

opportunity. what do you think should be done with the allegations that we just laid out? >> we held a press conference today, chris, fellow senators and myself to say, look, the allegations are very disheartening. they need to be investigated thoroughly, promptly, and without any partisan bias. as you point out, the gentleman we've heard about, mr. dallas in bladen county, has been involved in ballot solicitation activities that have given rise to allegations in 2016 and 2014 and 2010. there were complaints. those obviously have not been adequately resolved by the efforts to date of the state board of elections and prosecutorial authorities. we have to get to the bottom of it. there's no doubt about it. >> now, i hear you. that's the right thing to hear. the problem is in context, we understand that there were also issues during the primaries, and that they were voiced. and there was nothing done.

so it becomes a little bit of a crisis of confidence that anything will be done this time. how can you guarantee that there will be a fair outcome? >> well, i think that's exactly the point, chris. it's not -- i'm not in position to guarantee it. we're in the general assembly. what we have been saying over the last couple of years have been a bit of tug-of-war with the democratic governor making the point that the board of elections, the elections mechanism enforcement mechanism should not be a partisan operation. it needs to be bipartisan. and unfortunately, we haven't been very successful in gaining his ear on that point. but this is -- we have actually over three different administrations, this state board of elections has not resolved this problem. and so you're right, it extends into the primary allegedly this year and into the general election. >> you have two issues. you have who fixes it, and i'll ask you about that in a second.

but just to keep the record clear, harris paid dallas. so it's not about your state's infrastructure on that level. this is about a decision he made with a man who is a known quantity. and now there is a chance that he gets rewarded for his efforts with a congressional seat. do you think that should happen or do you think that under no circumstances should this man be seated until this is certified? >> well, i say follow the facts wherever they lead. my understanding is mr. dallas was involved, as i said, in the 2016 election -- >> he's not new to this. >> in which there was a similar issue in effect in the gubernatorial race then. interesting interestingly enough, the same elections official that made the motion not to certify here, which might have been the right decision for the time being, also voted to dismiss a similar complaint in 2016 involving similar activity. so, you know, it's hard to

know -- i don't know who knew what about mr. dallas. my understanding is various people recommend him or something. and there are legitimate activities to do pursuing absentee ballots, but not the ones we've heard about. >> nope. by definition, illegal. and whether or not people who he paid to do it allegedly, if they knew that, that's different. it doesn't sound from their interviews they knew what they were getting into. they were trying to make pocket money. that has to be sussed out. who is the final word here? where does the buck stop? who has the power to figure out what needs to happen here? >> well, we think in the first instance it's up to the governor. we've asked him to establish a bipartisan task force to examine -- to augment the efforts of the board of elections, and to examine this in its entirety as far back as it goes, perhaps to 2012. and not just in bladen and robeson counties, by the way

wherever it may lead. it may be statewide. it may be appropriate, chris, to reform the absentee ballot by mail mechanism that exists. it's always -- we face obstacles any time we do something to increase ballot security from various sources, but i think that may be something we have to pursue. but we have to know what the facts are, not just in one particular snapshot or from a biased or partisan point of view, but let's see what the full picture is. >> you can't let this man become the congressman for the 9th district before you find out whether he cheated in the race, right? >> and i haven't argued, as i said a moment ago, it's probably the right decision. in fact, i think it's certainly the right decision not to certify until we know what's going on. >> all right. >> but what we do need to do is we need to have a full picture of it and it needs to be done as promptly as possible. >> and if it does seem the race is just effective -- defective in many different ways, do you back the idea of a new election?

>> look, i think it's one of the things that can be done. >> what else could you do? >> the board needs to approach that decision -- well, the board needs to a ploech that decision in an evenhanded manner, pursuing it in the way that way -- same sort of analysis they've undertaken before, but you've got 285,000, i think, votes that have been cast in that race by -- lawfully. and you've got -- >> maybe. >> that has a significant -- well, you don't know exactly the anybody, but what we're talking about from what we've heard so far, the numbers pale in comparison to that large vote. you have to make the right decision about that, and the state board needs to do it with the possession of all the facts and they need to get to it as quickly as possible. >> all right. we're going to stay on this story and i look forward to having you as a resource on it, senator dan bishop. i appreciate it. i appreciate your candor and your taking the opportunity. you are in a very elite group on this occasion. >> thank you, chris. >> all right. be well. the president has reportedly

made another big decision. who should replace our u.n. ambassador, our ambassador to the u.n.? nikki haley was the one there. rumor maybe she could run for president some day, she was the governor of south carolina. his idea? i have a hint for you. she's a former fox and friends anchor. let's see what our great debaters think of that. does this qualify as only the best? these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again!

♪ there's no place likargh!e ♪ i'm trying... ♪ yippiekiyay. ♪ mom. ♪ all right. so, first the president wanted his personal doctor to be the head of the v.a. then he wanted his personal pilot to be the head of the faa.

now he wants a former anchor from his personal morning show to be the choice to replace former governor nikki haley as the u.n. ambassador. this is a cabinet-level position. that means that nauert would have tremendous responsibility for maintaining our foreign relations. she's been at the state department for like a year and a half, all right. originally as a coms person. communications. how does she qualify for the president's pledge to bring us only the best? let's ask jennifer grant holm and mike shies, two pieces of information to get you geneva convention. thanks for you being here. this is nauert's bio. i pulled it from online. 2 1/2 paragraphs of what she's done professionally. this is not to disparage. i know heather. i've watched her on tv for a long time. she was a good anchor. that doesn't necessarily make you a diplomat. it's interesting that, governor, we had mike pompeo and john bolton both supposedly think, according to the latest

reporting, that this position should be downgraded from cabinet level. yeah, no surprise if you're putting up a name like a fox news anchor in order to do the job. what's your take? >> well, first of all, being at e u.n. is -- you are the center of america's face to the world. so there's 195 countries in the world, and the people who go there from those countries, they are people who have been in the midst of foreign policy for decades. so my concern -- i am sure she is a smart person and that she is a great p.r. person, a great spokesperson. she could be doing maybe sarah huckabee sanders's job. but most people who go, adelaide stevenson, daniel patrick money hannahs, madelein albright, people steeped in scholarship or steeped in governmental service by being elected or had been steeped in foreign policy service. she has none of that, and so the concern is, of course, how she

will be viewed not just by the people at the u.n. because it's such a deep serious position, but also will she be able, without that deep chops, to be able to stand up to someone like john bolton or donald trump or at least speak her mind in a way that suggests strength like nikki haley was able to do. >> nikki haley, as a balance point to you, mike, she didn't have all that foreign diplomatic experience either, but she was a governor of a state, so you understand a level of government and important executive decision and how to deal with that kind of gravity. you give her the nod. let's be honest, by most accounts she did a very admirable job at the time. how do you feel about the selection? >> guess what, nikki haley was criticized for democrats for not having any foreign policy experience and then she did a great job when she was given the chance. >> again, she was a governor. > i think it is commendable that the president has nominated -- could potentially nominate a second woman for this position -- >> there are lots of women you could give this nomination to, by the way. >> yeah, great.

i'm glad that he's doing that. and i think that we should give her a chance before we suddenly decide that someone who has been working at the state department, who is in the inner circle of mike pompeo, who has the trust of the secretary of state who are formidable leaders obviously in the government, and they have her trust, and we've already decided she can't do the job. why is that? >> because -- >> she's the least experienced ever to be nominated. >> sure, she's being given a chance. by the way, it wouldn't be the first time -- if she was downgraded and it was actually through the secretary of state, that's happened before. that wouldn't be the first u.n. ambassador that the government had been set up that way. that's up to thement and the secretary of state how they want to do that. i actually think it is really hypocritical for the left and for democrats to talk about promoting women, to talk about giving women a chance -- >> not just any women. >> that's not the point. i don't want you to be the quarterback for the jets so we can say you had a woman do it. hold on, mike, i take your point. this is the problem with the

evolution of gender sensitivity. hey, we're going to throw you a bone, gov. we're going to put one of yours in the position. shut up, you should be happy. >> exactly. >> what is the real basis of satisfaction? >> can i just say that it's a really insulting thing to say, let me just throw a woman up there and therefore a woman problem will be cured. or therefore the democrats are hypocritical if they criticize. this would be the least experienced u.n. ambassador in the history of the united states. that's nothing to say, oh, let's just give her a shot. let's just try it. i mean, can she stand up to russia and to china, they are asking to alleviate -- >> let's find out. >> let's find out. there are 325 million people in america whose future counts on somebody -- >> why don't you let her have a day on the job? if she can't do the job -- >> why would you do it that way? mike, i thought you meant maybe we should go through some confirmation and see how she holds up to scrutiny even though -- i believe that is a

completely plastic protocol frankly. it is meant to push people through unless you are an aberration of cause, just being in the media alone, she should get through that process. mike, since when is that your vetting standard? let's give them a crack at the job? >> i didn't say that's the vetting standard. that's not what i'm saying is a vetting standard. there is a vetting standard. the president, by the way, has been considering lots of other candidates, has been talking to lots of people about this. he didn't just sort of wake up one day -- >> and can't find anybody better than a fox and friends anchor to do the job? >> it's been reported he's considered lots of candidates. he and mike pompeo and john bolton have had a big influence or they've changed the foreign policy structure at the white house over the last six to eight months and they are continuing to do that. >> so you think she's the best they could find? >> before you come on here and decide that this young woman can't do a job, why don't you actually see what her performance in the position is before you decide she can't do it? >> you shouldn't risk the values, the interests and the

policies of the united states on a farm team play. that's not how it works. fine, give her the shot. put her in charge of something at the state department where she's not as exposed to the universe of global diplomacy so that we all have to pay the price for where she's getting on-the-job training. >> i think there is a difference in this president's approach in how he addresses things like the united nations. the united nations is not a body that this president and this administration believes in deeply. this is a united nations that is completely anti-israel -- that's an interesting point. you make an interesting point. governor, let's pick that up. mike is making a point. tell me if i get it wrong. trump doesn't like the u.n. to begin with. they're going to downgrade the position -- put somebody in there and say this is how important i think you are. >> he's going to choose someone he trusts is my point. >> but the point is that he's choosing somebody who doesn't

have the experience of negotiating with heads of states or others in a diplomatic arena. even if you want to minimize the u.n., which sends a whole 'nother signal about how much he wants the u.s. to be retreating from the globe, how he wants it to be u.s. alone as opposed to us in partnership with allies to make us all stronger -- we've got an extremely complicated and dangerous world out there. and to be able to put this in the hands of either a weakened u.n. where the u.s. is minimized or somebody who doesn't -- isn't steeped in this history and in the knowledge of diplomacy is dangerous for the united states. that's the point. >> every, every woman who is in a senior leadership position at some point didn't have the experience and wasn't put in a place -- >> stop this. do not, do not be all feminist with me. do not do that. it is insulting to say, but the person who is the least -- >> i know euro fended by it, but

i believe what i'm telling you. >> would you let me finish? >> no, let me finish. heather nauert could be secretary of state one day and will look back and say thank god the president gave her a chance. >> listen, it would be fine to give somebody a chance who was not in such a pivotal critical position for the united states' safety. but you -- i mean, this position is a serious heavy position. it's not like -- >> women hear that all the time when they want a promotion, don't they? this is too serious for you. you're not really -- we need to have someone else do this. >> mike, are you playing at a point now or do you mean had? do you really believe heather nauert is an example of a woman -- >> we need more women leaders in our party. >> a starter job, she needs a chance so she can become something great some day? >> no, it's not a starter job. >> u.n. ambassador? >> what i reject is the president and the secretary of state have faith in this person. she's in their inner circle.

she's -- >> they had faith in matthew whitaker. he had faith in his pilot. he had faith in his doctor. >> it is exactly what women are told all the time -- >> i can find you 25 women in a quick google search who work at the state department right now who are imminently qualified for this. >> who don't have the president and secretary of state's trust. >> she's not going to pull off her apron and run out in the u.n., hey, i'm getting a shot. you're painting it like it's 1950. come on, mike. get qualified women in the positions. we're holding women back because we don't let somebody unqualified in a starter job -- >> you're already making arguments against her that sound sexist to me. that's what i'm talking about. >> she is a perfectly qualified spokesperson to be history as an avger. she is a smart person. this position is not a good match with her skills. if the republican party really wants to do better with women, how about adopting policies that women support?

this is why you lost so big in the midterm. this is why you're going to have a problem in 2020, is arguments like the one you are making right now which is pandering and not putting somebody up who has the experience for the position. >> thou dost protest too much. >> that is hilarious. >> that was said in the play. that shows the perils of putting a woman in a position when she's not ready nor t. it's not about man or woman, it's about qualifications. mike, rye spee expect you. appreciate having you on the show. i appreciate you both. thank you. protest too much. we don't protest enough when these things come out. . to get in there early when something is this outrageous. the president says you cannot trust undocumented immigrants. you've heard him say this so many times, right? but there seems to be a "but." but you can, apparently, if you work for him as an undocumented immigrant, because we're going to introduce you to somebody who has made the president's bed, dusted his golf trophies, even

cleaned his toilet. talked to them, interchanged with them. wait until you hear her lawyer explain why she must speak out to you now, next.

♪ the whole world's coming ♪ iftogether now ♪nd ♪ can you feel it ♪ can you feel it ♪ can you feel it ♪ can you feel it box: woah! ♪ can you feel it woman: delivery ♪ can you feel it woman: alexa, turn on the lights. ♪ can you feel it

♪ can you feel it

joo "the new york times" reports undocumented immigrants are working at one of president trump's golf clubs. two housekeepers who both came into the country illegally are saying they were among many illegal workers at the resort in bedminster, new jersey. the trump organization is pushing back here its response. we have tens of thousands of employees across our properties and have very strict hiring practices. if any employee submitted false documentation in an attempt to circumvent the law, they will be terminated immediately. well, what if the facility helped them get those documents and encouraged their employment even while knowing that they were undocumented? that is the suggestion of the lawyer for these women.

his name is annabel romero and here's his story. mr. romero, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, chris. thank you for having me. >> so let's get right to the main point here, which is is it true that you can prove that there is at least one trump property that employs undocumented immigrants and it's not just one, it's many? >> absolutely, chris. both of my clients are willing to cooperate with federal authorities and with state authorities. in fact, we have already been in contact with federal and state authorities and they're both willing to cooperate. >> they have been working there for years, and in at least one . what kind of jobs, what kind of contact have they had with the president? >> both of them, in the case of sandra, she worked there from 2010 until 2013. vicky started working there from 2013 until today. they were both housekeepers.

they both worked cleaning president trump's house. miss ivanka trump's house. they were in charge of bed sheets, toilets, serving food, whatever they needed, they were both always available for the president and for the first lady. >> and they had contact at least one of them, with the president. those exchanges according to the reporting was pleasant. >> yes. >> that your client had a positive image of the president. tell me. >> in fact -- yes, both of them had a positive image of the president. in fact, they were both at some point -- the president apparently gave them tips once in a while. in the beginning everything was great. since he became president, the staff at the club has in a way become empowered and now there is plenty of abuse. they have -- at least vicky has been assaulted on numerous occasions. they were both threatened with deportation. they were coerced into doing work they didn't want to do.

>> did they ever go to the police about the abuse or these activities as you describe them? >> we have been in contact with federal authorities and we have been in contact with state authorities. they have both contacted us and that's all i can say about that at this time. >> all right. let's test what you've said so far. you agree with me that they came here under false pretenses. they came in illegally. they got illegal documentation. and the reporting in "the new york times" says there is no proof that the trump organization knew. so then what did they do wrong if your employees falsified their documents -- >> sure. >> -- and posed as legal and able to work here, what is the fault involved of the trump organization? >> sure. i believe the article says that president trump didn't know or trump executives didn't know. but something i think is very important here. this isn't a hotel with 200, 300 employees. this is president trump's house and miss ivanka trump's house. both of these houses were

managed by three people. the supervising head of maintenance, the direct supervisor, and the woman who was described by one of my clients as president trump's son's nanny. >> so, the question is why come forward now? and you seem to be saying because things have changed. that after the president became president from just the owner of this golf club in new jersey, that they got a different notice, that there were different rules and different treatment. how so? >> sure. so, in the case of vicky, she claims that once mr. trump became president trump, everything changed. she was not allowed to go inside of mr. trump's house, although on a couple occasions when no one was around, they asked her to please come and clean the house. the direct supervisor became more abusive. and what they are saying now is that's enough. we're tired of this. we want to come forward. the rhetoric that is coming from

washington really bothered them. and they are really upset and they said, enough is enough. we want to tell our story. >> bothered them enough to risk coming forward and, one, prove that they're here illegally, and probably risk being deported. >> in the case of vicky, she is, yes, she was here illegal. we have now filed an asylum claim for her. her family -- her father-in-law was slaughtered by people in guatemala in front of her children. i believe we have a really strong asylum claim. and in the case of sandra -- remember, sandra worked there from 2009 until 2013. sandra is now a legal permanent resident. >> so, two questions. one, an asylum claim usually you have within a year. it's about an emergency situation. your client has been here many years. and with the other client, how can she now be here legally if she obtained the legal authorization under false pretenses? >> sure. so, in the case of vicky, we will allege that there has been a change of circumstances, and i

believe there are exceptions to the one-year rule, that we will argue either in front of an asylum office or in front of an immigration judge. in the case of sandra, she actually came in with a v-1, v-2 visa. her daughter, who also at one point was undocumented, became a became a permanent resident and then petitioned for her mother. so sandra has been a legal permanent resident i believe a couple of years. >> do you plan a civil suit? >> we have thought about it. there are many facts that still have to come out. i have to sit down with them. and we haven't made that decision yet. >> and just to be clear, you have two clients but you're suggesting that a number of the employees there mirror their situation, that they're under equally undocumented and illegal situation. >> absolutely. both of my clients are in direct contact with not one, two, three, there are many people who are still working there who are undocumented, who share the same

story. yes. >> and they believe that at least those in direct management are aware of this and in fact facilitated their illegal employment? >> absolutely. >> mr. romero, thank you very much. as you learn more, please pass it along. >> thank you, chris. thank you. >> all right. now, first of all, there's more to this story. mr. romero makes other allegations that i did not have time to vet. and in the interest of fairness, got to take that time. so there is more here. there's more than he said. there's more than was in the "new york times." we are checking on it now and giving the trump organization a chance to justify or to reject those claims, and we will have more on this probably tomorrow. now, kevin hart, the comedian chosen to host the oscars, he's facing backlash over old tweets that say bad things about gay people. in one 2011 tweet he wrote, "yo, if my son comes home and tries to play with my daughter's doll house i'm going to break it over his head and say in my voice,

stop, that's gay." and another from 2010 he says "someone's profile pic looks like a gay billboard for aids." in a 2009 tweet he says, "call someone a fat-faced" -- you read it for yourself. hart has been deleting some of the offensive tweets. here's what he's saying now. >> if you don't believe that people change, grow, evolve as they get older, i don't know what to tell you. if you want to hold people in a position where they always have to justify or explain their past, then do you. i'm the wrong guy, man. >> what, did he just like wake up and come to that thought? that's what it looked like in the video. let's bring in d-lemon. don, we have not heard from the academy about this yet. what's your take? >> i had a little problem with my earpiece, chris. go on. it's just hanging right here. say it again. what was your question? >> kevin hart is deleting tweets

now that are ugly about gay people that he's had from back like 2009, even earlier. he's been deleting them. he says if you're going to hold someone responsible for what they were a long time ago instead of what they are today then do you, i'm not the guy for you then. >> let me tell you how i feel about this, and not knowing - what kevin said i think is destructive. right? i think it's terrible. gay people are marginalized. they are in many ways brutalized. especially folks who are in the trans part of the lgbt community suffer dire consequences all the time. it is terrible. he should never have said it. that said, when someone gives an apology like that i want to take them at their word. i want to take him at his word. and i think that people can change and they can evolve. remember, our former president,

who actually encouraged legislation to be signed into law that gay people can get married, evolved on that issue. >> a lot of politicians do. >> i believe that kevin hart can evolve on this issue. i think that kevin hart is the kind of person, hopefully he will be, that will work with the lgbt community to make good on his past regressions and his past sins. and if he doesn't do that, then i may have a different opinion about it tomorrow or after, on and on. >> so he's got to do something before the oscars or -- >> i think he's doing something now. but listen, yes, there is -- there is a part of the culture now that they want to find fault with everyone. he's right about that. but people have the right to be upset with what he said about gay people, especially gay kids. gay kids are bullied all the time. gay kids face consequences that straight kids don't have to

face. gay kids grow up thinking it's bad because of the wray and a big part of what kevin hart said, i don't want my kid to be gay, i don't want -- they have horrible childhoods, they have to go to therapy and all that stuff. all of that is wrong. but if you are truly sorry and you tell me that you truly evolved and you've truly changed, then i need you to show me. and i do think from the limited -- i know kevin just in a limited way. i've interviewed him a couple of times. i've run into him just like at some place and say hello. i don't know him that well. but i do believe that he is the kind of person who will back up what he said. what he did was terrible, what he said was terrible. let's see what his actions are after this. because maybe he can end up becoming an ally and doing some good instead of harm. >> i hear what you're saying. look, we'll see what he does. that was not a great start. that video in bed of what he was saying. there was a nonchalance to it -- >> he can't just blow it off -- >> the situation warrants more than that. and also the academy has to step

up and explain this. didn't they vet him? don't they know what he said in the past? what's their position on it? but don, i respect your points, and i'll see you in a second. thank you, my brother. d-lemon, everybody. all right. so we're going to take a quick break. when we come back, the mandate of this show, why it was created, was part of our facts first. right? you remember all the cries from the president and republicans about the phantom election fraud in florida? remember the millions of illegal latinos who voted in the last election? that was a lie. well, now there is evidence of a problem that is real. but it works against republicans. so you know what you hear from them? nothing. crickets. the facts and the fiction of election fraud right under our noses. next. intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. it can even warm your feet to help you fall asleep faster. how smart is that? smarter sleep. to help you shed those sugar cookies,

get a running start on the holidays, and take it all in with the patience of a saint. don't miss the last chance to save up to $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. ends monday. a new way to save on travel. now when you book a flight you unlock discounts on select hotels that you can use up until your trip starts. so whether you want to go out, stay in,

or be in the middle of it all... add the perfect hotel when you're ready, and save. add on advantage. only with expedia.

the scene outside the time warner center in new york. they went floor by floor. they found nothing suspicious. this despite a call coming into security there at the time warner center around 9:47 p.m. new york time. that's about two hours ago now. more than two hours. claiming that five devices had been planted inside the building. that is when security decided to evacuate the center. everyone came out. we saw don lemon outside the building broadcasting a short time ago alongside brian stelter and our other colleagues who basically were forced to leave their on-air program at the time to go outside the building and to continue broadcasting. but what we know right now is this of course is now a secure